The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged in this case was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “persons with disabilities” as prescribed by the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, nor by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “persons with disabilities” under the Act on the Protection of Children from Sexual Abuse.

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s judgment on sentencing did not fully consider the sentencing factors in violation of Article 51 of the Criminal Act is an unfair argument in sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.